Monday, July 03, 2006

Matthew Cheney interview

Q: In your opinion, what are the most significant events in the world of speculative fiction publishing over the last decade, and what would they imply for the future?

A: Most of the things that affect the SF publishing world are parts of thepublishing world in general -- the conglomeration of major publishersinto only two or three giant corporations, the rise of onlinebooksellers for new and used books, the proliferation of new media foraccessing writing (ebooks, blogs, etc.).

In some ways, the rise of what gets called "New Weird" writing --writing that mixes various genres, that has at least some sense ofliterary style, etc. -- has been important in helping to broaden what SFis generally available to readers -- the success of China Mieville'swork has opened up avenues for other writers whose work would, beforethat, probably have been relegated to the small presses. That JeffVanderMeer's books are all being reprinted by major publishers acrossthe world is an example of that.

Q: One fallout of the spec-fic world becoming so vast, vibrant and self-sustaining is this; the rest of the world is more left out than ever.Writers working in SF and fantasy from India, say, find it even harder to get their work read, because the SFF publishing market is hugely different from the mainstream literary one, with a wholly separate set of publishers and agents - which means that if there's any glamour left to the whole 'Indian writing' phenomenon, with India being the theme for major lit fairs like the Frankfurt Book Fair and the London Book Fair, it doesn't apply in these markets. Besides, most SFF writers currently breaking through abroad go through the short stories in magazines/meeting people at conferences routine before they managed to get signed up. Exactly how important are conferences in the world of spec-fic? Given that Indians don't have access to conferences abroad, do you think that these inequalities are just things that Indian SFF writers looking to get published internationally will just have to take in their stride, or is there anything that they can do to help their work get seen?

A: All of this depends on how you define SF publishing. It's notmonolithic, and while yes there are specialty publishers and imprints,there's plenty of overlap. What there may be less of is an overlap inreaders -- the demographic that reads Indian mainstream lit in the U.S.is quite different from the demographic reading core science fiction.I'm not particularly optimistic about the future of core science fictionreading and publishing; it seems to me that most such science fiction isnostalgic, conservative, and becoming a hardened genre rather than afluid idiom, which is what it was up until about the time of thecyberpunks, who may have been such science fiction's last gasp. Suchscience fiction functions much like western novels -- it continues tohave an audience, but is seldom more than a reshuffling of familiarmaterials. When the materials are new, they make the work intosomething other, and this other has more and more luck getting publishedas mainstream fiction now than it does as genre fiction, where theaudiences are often less adventurous: they know what they want, and theyexpect to get it, and it better be exactly like it was last time, orthey don't like it. (Of course, I'm generalizing wildly, but I thinkit's important to counter some of the narrative you're creating.)

As for conventions, they're not nearly as important as they used to be.They're fun sometimes, they're more than a bit ridiculous, and they'repretty much just a chance for people with somewhat similar interests tohang out and drink a lot. Oh, and give each other awards. We like togive a lot of awards, because it makes us feel good, and gives ussomething else to argue about. Conventions are useful for networking ifyou already know some people, but they're not very useful if you don'thave some sort of "in". I didn't go to my first convention until Ialready knew a bunch of writers.

The internet is probably the most useful tool for the aspiring writer,if used well. It's hardly a meritocracy, but it's better than previousavenues. More and more magazines accept electronic submissions,particularly from writers from countries other than the one the magazineis based in. Much information about editors and agents, what they doand how to approach them, is available via the internet. More and morereaders find people with similar interests via message boards andweblogs. Etc. SF is still very much U.S.-centered, but that center isbeginning to disperse more than it has in the past.

Q: In recent years, there's been a lot of talk about the New Weird, about speculative fiction writers blurring genre borders. Given that India doesn't have a history of SFF publishing, or a growth curve through magazines and anthologies as seen in more developed spec-fic markets, do you think that the way ahead for South Asian SFF lies in blending speculative fiction with literary traditions that are more associated with South Asian writing? Is there any particular tradition of South Asian writing/aspect of South Asian culture/myth/history that you'd like to see married to speculative fiction?

A: In terms of what will grow well in a country, it depends on what thewriters want to write and readers want to read. I think we're alreadyseeing some exhaustion in the SF field with the typical props and modelsof writing, and so U.S. and British writers are looking elsewhere forideas. Also, we live in a world where it's much easier to encounterpeople from outside our own countries, and to gain information aboutplaces other than our own, and many readers hunger for it. Some of itmay just be the attraction of exoticism, but I think the success ofbooks like Tobias Buckell's "Crystal Rain", which mixes a variety ofinfluences in a traditional SF adventure story, or Ian MacDonald's"River of Gods", which is more specifically Indian, bodes well for thefuture, because such books show writers trying to bring an honestsensibility about non-Western or post-colonial cultures into their work,and to do so in as honest a way as possible.

Q: While acknowledging that spec-fic isn't monolithic and there are a hundred different directions it's growing in at any time, what do you feel are the most exciting fields of work in contemporary science fiction and fantasy? What area would you like to see more work in? And what do you think new writers should avoid?

A: I'd like to see more new work that is surprising. I don't have anyinterest in reading books that are just like all the other books I'veread. New writers often want to be just like the writers who firstcaptured their imaginations, and so they write imitations, which is agood way to learn some skills, but it's not what we should be payingmuch attention to as readers and editors and critics. We've got CharlesStross already, we don't not a bunch of mini-Strosses. We've got ChinaMieville already, we don't need more. These are interesting writersbecause they're not just like everybody else, but the danger of theirsuccess is that suddenly 100 people start trying to write just likethem, and that's a dead end. Even Stross and Mieville shouldn't try towrite like themselves. (Self-imitation is a danger of success -- justlook at what happened to the quality of Isaac Asimov's work when in the1980s he tried to imitate his old successes.) New writers should strivefor an original vision, for material that they can make theirs, and theyshould do so with passion and vigor, writing the truth of the world asthey see it, striving all the while to be not merely entertaining (we'vegot plenty of things to entertain us) but also something more -- andthere are a thousand somethings more to strive toward.

Q: Do you feel that practically speaking, writers from countries not normally associated with spec-fic markets need to emphasize on their own countries' myths/folklore in order to provide some kind of diversity and succeed in the international marketplace?

A: Not necessarily. Sure, in the publishing world there's an expectationfor marketing reasons that someone who fits into some sort of national,ethnic, racial, sexual, etc. category will write work that fits intosome general stereotype of what such a person should write, but I don'tthink writers should concern themselves about that. Writers who try towrite for a market will probably write hollow, lifeless, imitativestories. Writers need to write about what most concerns them, whatexcites and infuriates them, what they can't not write. If they dothat, eventually they'll find an audience of some sort. If a writerjust wants to make a lot of money and reach a wide audience, theyshouldn't write books and short stories, they should get into movies and TV.

Q: Do you think there's any evidence of interest in Western markets for speculative fiction from countries as alien to readers as other planets?

A: Evidence? Sure -- look at the success of everything from BruceSterling's "Islands in the Net" to Geoff Ryman's "Air". That most suchbooks have been written by Americans and Brits so far is unfortunate,but I expect it will change soon. Maybe I'm just an optimist.